ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th April 2007, 06:06 PM   #1
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
A New Myth?

Our old friend Skeptosis has surfaced on Smasher's site. I thought I had heard all of the fantasist myths, but the one about the "swiss cheese" steel is new to me. Are the loons actually getting tired of recycling the same crap all the time, or has this one been bouncing around for a while?

Skeptosis wrote:

w0w, it takes a moment to remember that this was a post about Rosie O'Donnell and WTC7.

a few quick questions for the 'bunkers':

1. do those steelworkers, welders, blacksmiths, firefighters, manufacturers of samurai swords, et al. have any idea what might have the capacity to turn WTC7's inch-thick, ASTM A36 structural steel to 'swiss cheese'?

2. do any of them (or for that matter any of you) know what's become of that 'swiss cheese' steel since late 2001, and/or why NIST claims that it doesn't exist?

3. are you aware that NIST's long-awaited (and as-yet-unreleased) report on the implosion of WTC7 was outsourced to a US Defense Contractor?

just curious.

Last edited by pomeroo; 8th April 2007 at 06:16 PM.
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2007, 06:25 PM   #2
MarkyX
Master Poster
 
MarkyX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,157
The Swiss Cheese is a new thing, but still doesn't prove anything. None of the "theories" that 9/11 Deniers put out mention anything about "swiss cheese" metal, even on fictional devices like thermite bombs.

So my question is, what does this prove? Because it's impossible for explosive devices to do this.
__________________
MarkyX's Haunted Bloghouse - Read my boredom
MarkyX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2007, 06:29 PM   #3
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
i havent heard it referred to as swiss cheese, but i have heard claims that the steel in WTC7 was heavily oxidized and sulfidated, which seems consistant with being exposed to deisel fuel and high temperatures for a prolonged period of time
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2007, 06:51 PM   #4
Unsecured Coins
Hoku-maniac
 
Unsecured Coins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,905
I have no idea how long it's taken you all to come to the realization that DAVID COPPERFIELD was behind 9/11.

1) He has made a 747 disappear at his shows.

2) That explains the "flyover" at the pentagon.

3) As a magician, he made all the det cord and explosive residue disappear as well.

4) I have had too much coffee today
__________________
"If God wants 10% of my paycheck, he can get it himself. Or at least work for it -Kochanski
"I may not be easy, but I am fast." - Hokulele
"Oh CRAP... DQ!!" - Ol' Hokey, yet again
Unsecured Coins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2007, 07:21 PM   #5
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
As I said before, I think the Defense contractor will be the truth movements "out" when the report comes back supporting the Debris/Fire Theory rather than the CD theory...

"Yah, well the report is just govt propaganda, it was outsourced by a USG DOD contractor ya know!!"

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2007, 07:54 PM   #6
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,191
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
2. do any of them (or for that matter any of you) know what's become of that 'swiss cheese' steel since late 2001, and/or why NIST claims that it doesn't exist?
This is deceptive to say the least. NIST states that no steel was recovered from WTC7 for one of its tests, but they were not talking about little Swiss Cheese chunks. They wanted structural elements, as they say on Page 40 of this report. They wanted columns, trusses, what have you. Not the little chunks that make up the 'Swiss Cheese' samples.

I want to hear where NIST states "The 'swiss cheese' examples do not exist." Because I don't think that is what they said.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2007, 08:29 PM   #7
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Eh- I've heard this claim before. The "swiss cheese" analogy (I believe even stated in FEMA) was about a microscopic analysis done on the sample taken from an unknown location at WTC 7. This is referring to the eutectic reaction of the sulfur, et al- which produced the "liquified" steel...

Hardly consistent with a thermate/thermite/termite/super-duper-thermite reaction. The fact that it only really appears on this one abnormal sample (AFAIK) blows much bigger holes in their theory- we're talking tunnel size holes. You could drive a truck through them...
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2007, 08:33 PM   #8
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,463
Originally Posted by Unsecured Coins View Post
I have no idea how long it's taken you all to come to the realization that DAVID COPPERFIELD was behind 9/11.

1) He has made a 747 disappear at his shows.

2) That explains the "flyover" at the pentagon.

3) As a magician, he made all the det cord and explosive residue disappear as well.

4) I have had too much coffee today

Don't forget about the Statue of Liberty. If he could make that disappear, why not the World Trade Center?
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2007, 09:04 PM   #9
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,391
Originally Posted by Totovader View Post
Eh- I've heard this claim before. The "swiss cheese" analogy (I believe even stated in FEMA) was about a microscopic analysis done on the sample taken from an unknown location at WTC 7. This is referring to the eutectic reaction of the sulfur, et al- which produced the "liquified" steel...

Hardly consistent with a thermate/thermite/termite/super-duper-thermite reaction. The fact that it only really appears on this one abnormal sample (AFAIK) blows much bigger holes in their theory- we're talking tunnel size holes. You could drive a truck through them...
I heard that claim years ago, too. I did a quick search and found the "swiss cheese" analogy referring to eutectic reaction from at least as far back as October of 2002 (at DU).

Interestingly enough, they were also babbling about "pyroclastic flows" back then, too.

A blast from the past.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2007, 11:00 PM   #10
Obviousman
Muse
 
Obviousman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 652
How about that. The "Swiss Cheese" analogy in aviation refers to the Reason Model of aviation accidents.

It's a valuable study, but I think that it is better when combined with the Boeing "Chain of events" analogy.
__________________
Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT.
Jack White

Little White Lies.......
Obviousman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 05:50 AM   #11
VespaGuy
Graduate Poster
 
VespaGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,034
I clicked the link and couldn't beleive that Skeptosis linked to an article from Worcester Polytechic Institute. It's one of the top engineering schools on the east coast in the US. (And I'm not just saying that because I went there )

Its always sad to see truthers link to reputable institutions to try to promote their sillyness. Just reading the article, you come across statements like this:

Quote:
"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain."
But noooo... truthers would much rather believe that something much more diabolical was responsible.

There's a very simple solution for the truthers. Contact the school. It's chock full of structural engineers, professors, and other experts. Why not find out if any of them question the collapses? I doubt that they will find any 'truthers' at WPI.
__________________
"You are claiming it wasn't one. That is a positive claim." - Russell Pickering
VespaGuy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 06:04 AM   #12
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
i havent heard it referred to as swiss cheese, but i have heard claims that the steel in WTC7 was heavily oxidized and sulfidated, which seems consistant with being exposed to deisel fuel and high temperatures for a prolonged period of time
Ahh that would be the unestablished exposure to diesel fuel and high temperatures.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 06:08 AM   #13
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
As I said before, I think the Defense contractor will be the truth movements "out" when the report comes back supporting the Debris/Fire Theory rather than the CD theory...

"Yah, well the report is just govt propaganda, it was outsourced by a USG DOD contractor ya know!!"

TAM
They pretty much have to come back with that finding.

I'm sure NIST doesn't want to re-write their 10,000 page tome which will be the obvious consequence of a controlled demolition finding as the cause of the WTC7 collapse.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 06:19 AM   #14
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Ahh that would be the unestablished exposure to diesel fuel and high temperatures.

MM
whether you believe deisel and heat were present at WTC7 or not the observed phenomona is still consistant with it, so my point still stands

perhaps you would care to elebaorate how this is consistant with any demolition/thermite theory out there?
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 06:23 AM   #15
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
They pretty much have to come back with that finding.

I'm sure NIST doesn't want to re-write their 10,000 page tome which will be the obvious consequence of a controlled demolition finding as the cause of the WTC7 collapse.

MM
oh yes....hmmm lets see.

--------
NIST SCIENTIST #1: Well our new evidence clearly shows the USG committed the murder of 3000 people.

NIST MANAGER: Too bad, but I am not going to rewrite those ten thousand pages, so I guess they'll have to get away with it.

NIST SCIENTIST #1: ok.

-----

Do you really think before you make comments like that.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 06:33 AM   #16
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,191
I like how MM tries to take the extensive size of the NIST report as a weapon to use against it. Talk about anti-intellectualism!

"Big books make troother brain hurt"
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 06:40 AM   #17
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
whether you believe deisel and heat were present at WTC7 or not the observed phenomona is still consistant with it, so my point still stands

perhaps you would care to elebaorate how this is consistant with any demolition/thermite theory out there?
I agree that diesel fuel and heat were present.

Probably that criteria exists to a varying degree in most concrete and steel highrise fires, but that hardly qualifies as making your point.

Making your point would involve some effort on your part, like providing evidence that the existence of heat and diesel fuel commonly results in the observed phenomenon!

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 06:43 AM   #18
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I agree that diesel fuel and heat were present.

Probably that criteria exists to a varying degree in most concrete and steel highrise fires, but that hardly qualifies as making your point.

Making your point would involve some effort on your part, like providing evidence that the existence of heat and diesel fuel commonly results in the observed phenomenon!

MM
and while i compile evidence of that will you be looking into how the observed phenomenon is indicative of any form of controlled demolition, either real or imaginary?
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 07:21 AM   #19
apathoid
Government Loyalist
 
apathoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,830
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Making your point would involve some effort on your part, like providing evidence that the existence of heat and diesel fuel commonly results in the observed phenomenon!

MM
Here ya go.



Quote:
Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...rman-0112.html




Quote:
The as-fabricated microstructure consisted of a hot worked banded structure of ferrite and pearlite. In severely "eroded" regions where the thickness had been reduced to less than a 1/16 of and inch significant decarburation was observed. In addition, some pearlite bands presented regions that had re-austentized as well as regions where the pearlite had started to spheroidize. These observations indicate that steel had experienced temperature between 550 and 850∞C.

An examination of the "slag" that formed on the surface of the steel found iron oxides and iron sulfides. It appeared that the "slag" was liquid at high temperature and easily attacked the grain boundaries. A eutectic microstructure was seen within the "slag" of iron oxides and iron sulfides. If these compounds were pure Wustite (FeO) and Iron sulfide (FeS), the eutectic temperature is 940∞C. It appears that the severe "erosion" was due to the sulfidation and oxidation (i.e. hot corrosion) of the steel followed by the liquid "slag" attack of the grain boundaries.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html

The "swiss cheese" steel was only exposed to temps around 1000 C, Thermite burns at 3000+.



Quote:
"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain."

Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines.
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformati...ing/steel.html
__________________
Nature abhors a moron. -H.L. Mencken
apathoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 07:23 AM   #20
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Ahh that would be the unestablished exposure to diesel fuel and high temperatures.

MM

Diesel fuel being ONE possible source for sulphur which is suggested by the presence of a great deal more diesel fuel in WTC 7 than in the majority of other high rise structures let alone those which have had major fires in them.

Other sources are, as mentioned, acid rain and auto mobile exhaust. The sulphur would be benign as long as the temperature of the steel is low but would iniate a eutectic reaction as the temperature rose in a major fire causing rapid erosion of the steel.

Do you read anything other than CT web sites?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 07:38 AM   #21
The Doc
Curing Stupidity
 
The Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,158
Don't forget about the sulphur-based drywall...
__________________
Author - 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide
http://www.911mysteriesguide.com

Creator - "Screw 9/11 Mysteries"
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...24912447824934
The Doc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 08:05 AM   #22
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
oh yes....hmmm lets see.

--------
NIST SCIENTIST #1: Well our new evidence clearly shows the USG committed the murder of 3000 people.

NIST MANAGER: Too bad, but I am not going to rewrite those ten thousand pages, so I guess they'll have to get away with it.

NIST SCIENTIST #1: ok.

-----

Do you really think before you make comments like that.

TAM
Hmm..let's see

---

Sometime in the Fall of 2006...

NIST Scientist Numero Uno: "So far none of our models can be induced to simulate the observed WTC7 collapse phenomenon no matter how much we tweak the parameters.

I know your not going to like this but, so far, only controlled demolition explains the kind of collapse that occurred."

NIST Administrator: "Hmm that is a problem..a big problem.

As you can imagine, we are under a lot of pressure to wrap this up.

Damn 9/11, this was a great place until we got sucked into having to explain that mess! This news won't help the future of this organization much. The big boys want answers but nothing that will 'rock boats'. If we acknowledge any possibility that there was a controlled demolition at WTC7, then we'll be wading in ***** up to our ears!

Obviously we can't get away with pretending it was a 'same day' preparation. Who ever did this had to know the 'big picture' on 9/11.

Hmm..I really don't want to go there, I retire soon. Let the FBI do their job and deal with that crap. Not good for the country looking in that direction anyway..can you just imagine the fallout?

Sorry..thinking out loud..cough cough.

Controlled demolition of just WTC7 on 9/11 is just too big a coincidence, even for our gullible public to swallow. Damn! They'll want a complete re-accounting of what happened at WTC 1 & 2. All the assumptions we made and that marvellous 10,000 page mountain of ..well you see the problem..we're not going to look good and heads will roll. We've got to come up with a way to put this 'baby to bed'."

NIST Scientist Numero Uno: "Hmm. Well, we could probably buy some more time. We can issue a preliminary status report or two..not really say anything, but indicate our study plans, and that we still lean to the fire and debris damage explanation.. but are considering any possibility... including demolitions?"

NIST Administrator: "Well if we could put it off till probably Spring 2007.. we might be able to word a report that will be less of a problem.

Hmmm.. Damn! I think I got it!

We might be able to steer attention away by suggesting that while fire and debris damage played a significant role in the WTC7 collapse, apparently unknown explosives, possibly housed by the C.I.A. or Secret Service, appeared to have been stored on the premises. We don't have to speculate openly as to whether they owned the explosives, I'm sure the press will do that anyway..ha ha. We'll argue..no bad choice of words...maintain..yes much better, maintain that the fires in the building lead to the detonation of those explosives which sufficiently weakened the building to create the observed collapse phenomenon! I like it!

Okay, I think that should be the crux of the WTC7 Final Collapse Report. Flesh it out with our usual professional looking presentation, lots of documentation, pictures, lab tests, expert opinions etc. and I thing we'll make a lot of important people very happy.

That should work well and hell, it could have happened that way..sure..at least most people will think it could and that's the important thing here.

It was an accident of course. Some agency will get a wrist slap for illegal storage of dangerous explosives and we'll have the solution to the WTC7 mystery!

The public will buy it and so what if it's not probable that random explosions could create a controlled demolition effect. People are screaming for proof of controlled demolition, well dammit we'll give 'em their demolition explanation and they'll soon be so bored with the story, no one will pursue the details further.

That'll take 'the wind out of the sails' of that crazy 9/11 truth Movement! We could have ignored WTC7 all together if it wasn't for those unpatriotic basta*ds!

Well, I feel so much better now. After work the drinks are on me."

---

Yes T.A.M. I give a lot of thought to most of my posts..usually well before I make them.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 08:11 AM   #23
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Diesel fuel being ONE possible source for sulphur which is suggested by the presence of a great deal more diesel fuel in WTC 7 than in the majority of other high rise structures let alone those which have had major fires in them.

Other sources are, as mentioned, acid rain and auto mobile exhaust. The sulphur would be benign as long as the temperature of the steel is low but would iniate a eutectic reaction as the temperature rose in a major fire causing rapid erosion of the steel.

Do you read anything other than CT web sites?
Oh pleez!

Lets not forget flatulence, I've heard it's a great source of sulphur as well.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 08:31 AM   #24
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by apathoid View Post
Here ya go.





http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...rman-0112.html






http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html

The "swiss cheese" steel was only exposed to temps around 1000 C, Thermite burns at 3000+.





http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformati...ing/steel.html
Nice load of ****..err 'cut 'n paste' apathoid but I never argued against the existence of a eutectic reaction.

I was looking for proof that the existence of diesel fuel in WTC7 was a viable explanation for the observed effect on the WTC7 steel. Just because blacksmiths used sulphur-rich charcoal doesn't mean that sulphur existing in other compounds can be utilized in a similar fashion.

Although diesel fuel contains a key element, sulphur, which is required to create the eutectic reaction, that doesn't necessarily qualify it as an extractable source for the reaction, or mean that it was sufficiently available throughout the WTC7 facility to account for all the occurrences of this reaction.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 08:34 AM   #25
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Nice load of ****..err 'cut 'n paste' apathoid but I never argued against the existence of a eutectic reaction.

I was looking for proof that the existence of diesel fuel in WTC7 was a viable explanation for the observed effect on the WTC7 steel. Just because blacksmiths used sulphur-rich charcoal doesn't mean that sulphur existing in other compounds can be utilized in a similar fashion.

Although diesel fuel contains a key element, sulphur, which is required to create the eutectic reaction, that doesn't necessarily qualify it as an extractable source for the reaction, or mean that it was sufficiently available throughout the WTC7 facility to account for all the occurrences of this reaction.

MM
lets say its not the deisel, how would you explain it?
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 08:38 AM   #26
The Doc
Curing Stupidity
 
The Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,158
MM,

Real investigations take time. If you have evidence that NIST could not find a reasonable answer for the collapse of WTC7, provide it. Otherwise shut up and wait for the report to come out.

Sheesh.
__________________
Author - 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide
http://www.911mysteriesguide.com

Creator - "Screw 9/11 Mysteries"
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...24912447824934
The Doc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 08:47 AM   #27
apathoid
Government Loyalist
 
apathoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,830
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Nice load of ****..err 'cut 'n paste' apathoid but I never argued against the existence of a eutectic reaction.

I was looking for proof that the existence of diesel fuel in WTC7 was a viable explanation for the observed effect on the WTC7 steel. Just because blacksmiths used sulphur-rich charcoal doesn't mean that sulphur existing in other compounds can be utilized in a similar fashion.

Although diesel fuel contains a key element, sulphur, which is required to create the eutectic reaction, that doesn't necessarily qualify it as an extractable source for the reaction, or mean that it was sufficiently available throughout the WTC7 facility to account for all the occurrences of this reaction.

MM
You asked for "... some effort on your part, like providing evidence..." and I provided evidence that there is a perfectly logical explanation for the steel erosion. Excuse me for not being a metallurgist and having to find a few links...

Now instead of complaining about someone providing the evidence that you yourself asked for; how about some evidence(yes, you may provide links as I doubt you are a metallurgist) that 5000 gallons of diesel, sulfur based drywall, acid rain, burning plastics, salt air, etc...is not enough to account for observed sulfidation/erosion, etc..
__________________
Nature abhors a moron. -H.L. Mencken
apathoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 09:14 AM   #28
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by The Doc View Post
MM,

Real investigations take time. If you have evidence that NIST could not find a reasonable answer for the collapse of WTC7, provide it. Otherwise shut up and wait for the report to come out.

Sheesh.
Context Doc.

I was replying to T.A.M.'s hypothetical conversation!

I hear the long-awaited report on how the pyramids were constructed is due this Spring as well...I look forward to scrolling through it.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 09:20 AM   #29
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by apathoid View Post
You asked for "... some effort on your part, like providing evidence..." and I provided evidence that there is a perfectly logical explanation for the steel erosion. Excuse me for not being a metallurgist and having to find a few links...

Now instead of complaining about someone providing the evidence that you yourself asked for; how about some evidence(yes, you may provide links as I doubt you are a metallurgist) that 5000 gallons of diesel, sulfur based drywall, acid rain, burning plastics, salt air, etc...is not enough to account for observed sulfidation/erosion, etc..
Quality not quantity apathoid. Any post monkey can cut 'n paste and claim it as research.

To accept your offering would raise the expectation of discovering these reactions all over the place.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 09:24 AM   #30
The Doc
Curing Stupidity
 
The Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,158
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Context Doc.

I was replying to T.A.M.'s hypothetical conversation!

I hear the long-awaited report on how the pyramids were constructed is due this Spring as well...I look forward to scrolling through it.

MM
Yes. But did you, or did you not, use that as a vehicle for your own opinion on the way NIST is conducting their investigation?
__________________
Author - 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide
http://www.911mysteriesguide.com

Creator - "Screw 9/11 Mysteries"
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...24912447824934
The Doc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 09:30 AM   #31
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Oh pleez!

Lets not forget flatulence, I've heard it's a great source of sulphur as well.

MM
In large enough quantities it could be. Had you been roaming the corridors of WTC 7 in the months prior to 9/11? Perhaps that would in itself provide vast enough quantities of colonic gases.

Several sources of sulphur were supplied to you all of which would have contributed over the decades that the building was in place.

Now do you have any other great pearls of wisdom to bestow on us such as explaining what you believe caused the erosion?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 09:37 AM   #32
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Hmm..let's see

---

Sometime in the Fall of 2006...

NIST Scientist Numero Uno: "So far none of our models can be induced to simulate the observed WTC7 collapse phenomenon no matter how much we tweak the parameters.

I know your not going to like this but, so far, only controlled demolition explains the kind of collapse that occurred."

NIST Administrator: "Hmm that is a problem..a big problem.

As you can imagine, we are under a lot of pressure to wrap this up.

Damn 9/11, this was a great place until we got sucked into having to explain that mess! This news won't help the future of this organization much. The big boys want answers but nothing that will 'rock boats'. If we acknowledge any possibility that there was a controlled demolition at WTC7, then we'll be wading in ***** up to our ears!

Obviously we can't get away with pretending it was a 'same day' preparation. Who ever did this had to know the 'big picture' on 9/11.

Hmm..I really don't want to go there, I retire soon. Let the FBI do their job and deal with that crap. Not good for the country looking in that direction anyway..can you just imagine the fallout?

Sorry..thinking out loud..cough cough.

Controlled demolition of just WTC7 on 9/11 is just too big a coincidence, even for our gullible public to swallow. Damn! They'll want a complete re-accounting of what happened at WTC 1 & 2. All the assumptions we made and that marvellous 10,000 page mountain of ..well you see the problem..we're not going to look good and heads will roll. We've got to come up with a way to put this 'baby to bed'."

NIST Scientist Numero Uno: "Hmm. Well, we could probably buy some more time. We can issue a preliminary status report or two..not really say anything, but indicate our study plans, and that we still lean to the fire and debris damage explanation.. but are considering any possibility... including demolitions?"

NIST Administrator: "Well if we could put it off till probably Spring 2007.. we might be able to word a report that will be less of a problem.

Hmmm.. Damn! I think I got it!

We might be able to steer attention away by suggesting that while fire and debris damage played a significant role in the WTC7 collapse, apparently unknown explosives, possibly housed by the C.I.A. or Secret Service, appeared to have been stored on the premises. We don't have to speculate openly as to whether they owned the explosives, I'm sure the press will do that anyway..ha ha. We'll argue..no bad choice of words...maintain..yes much better, maintain that the fires in the building lead to the detonation of those explosives which sufficiently weakened the building to create the observed collapse phenomenon! I like it!

Okay, I think that should be the crux of the WTC7 Final Collapse Report. Flesh it out with our usual professional looking presentation, lots of documentation, pictures, lab tests, expert opinions etc. and I thing we'll make a lot of important people very happy.

That should work well and hell, it could have happened that way..sure..at least most people will think it could and that's the important thing here.

It was an accident of course. Some agency will get a wrist slap for illegal storage of dangerous explosives and we'll have the solution to the WTC7 mystery!

The public will buy it and so what if it's not probable that random explosions could create a controlled demolition effect. People are screaming for proof of controlled demolition, well dammit we'll give 'em their demolition explanation and they'll soon be so bored with the story, no one will pursue the details further.

That'll take 'the wind out of the sails' of that crazy 9/11 truth Movement! We could have ignored WTC7 all together if it wasn't for those unpatriotic basta*ds!

Well, I feel so much better now. After work the drinks are on me."

---

Yes T.A.M. I give a lot of thought to most of my posts..usually well before I make them.

MM

Your fantasies are amusing, but a real conversation with a NIST representative would proceed along the lines of several I've had with Mike Newman:

Q) Is there anything at all that lends the slightest bit of credence to these allegations of demolition through the use of explosives?
A) No, absolutely nothing. We haven't found a single thing to suggest that explosives were used anywhere in the WTC complex.

Your confession that you actually think about the stuff you post is a pretty damning self-indictment. If I were you, I'd claim that these notions just pop into my head, and before I know what's happening, there they are in black-and-white.
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 09:41 AM   #33
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Quality not quantity apathoid. Any post monkey can cut 'n paste and claim it as research.
Odd then that you usually just resort to name calling rather than offer anything, including cut n' paste.

Quote:
To accept your offering would raise the expectation of discovering these reactions all over the place.

MM
Again, only in buildings that have had a build up of sulphur containing residue on steel AND have suffered a major fire that heated that steel to at least 550 deg Celcius. That would tend to decrease the frequency of this being observed but would be a potential problem in other building fires. If the sulphur is from a ground level source then fires that occur at higher floors would not see this erosion once again decreasing the frequency of this erosion being observed.
Furthermore this erosion has not been shown to have been widespread in WTC 7. It may indeed have occured elsewhere but it took an investigation the size and scope of the NIST WTC report to note it.
If the WTC NIST reports had been 100 pages long rather than the 10,000 pages you complain incessantly about one wonders if this eutectic erosion would have made it onto those pages.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 09:44 AM   #34
apathoid
Government Loyalist
 
apathoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,830
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Quality not quantity apathoid. Any post monkey can cut 'n paste and claim it as research.

Did I not make myself clear enough in my last post? You asked for evidence, I provided it. I do not recall making any claims about doing research. If you want speculation and uninformed opinions being passed off as "research", go back to the Loose Change forums.
__________________
Nature abhors a moron. -H.L. Mencken
apathoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 09:57 AM   #35
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,191
Originally Posted by apathoid View Post
Did I not make myself clear enough in my last post? You asked for evidence, I provided it.
Yeah, but you gotta remember, kooks hate when you do that.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 09:58 AM   #36
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Hmm..let's see

---

Sometime in the Fall of 2006...

NIST Scientist Numero Uno: "So far none of our models can be induced to simulate the observed WTC7 collapse phenomenon no matter how much we tweak the parameters.

I know your not going to like this but, so far, only controlled demolition explains the kind of collapse that occurred."

NIST Administrator: "Hmm that is a problem..a big problem.

As you can imagine, we are under a lot of pressure to wrap this up.

Damn 9/11, this was a great place until we got sucked into having to explain that mess! This news won't help the future of this organization much. The big boys want answers but nothing that will 'rock boats'. If we acknowledge any possibility that there was a controlled demolition at WTC7, then we'll be wading in ***** up to our ears!

Obviously we can't get away with pretending it was a 'same day' preparation. Who ever did this had to know the 'big picture' on 9/11.

Hmm..I really don't want to go there, I retire soon. Let the FBI do their job and deal with that crap. Not good for the country looking in that direction anyway..can you just imagine the fallout?

Sorry..thinking out loud..cough cough.

Controlled demolition of just WTC7 on 9/11 is just too big a coincidence, even for our gullible public to swallow. Damn! They'll want a complete re-accounting of what happened at WTC 1 & 2. All the assumptions we made and that marvellous 10,000 page mountain of ..well you see the problem..we're not going to look good and heads will roll. We've got to come up with a way to put this 'baby to bed'."

NIST Scientist Numero Uno: "Hmm. Well, we could probably buy some more time. We can issue a preliminary status report or two..not really say anything, but indicate our study plans, and that we still lean to the fire and debris damage explanation.. but are considering any possibility... including demolitions?"

NIST Administrator: "Well if we could put it off till probably Spring 2007.. we might be able to word a report that will be less of a problem.

Hmmm.. Damn! I think I got it!

We might be able to steer attention away by suggesting that while fire and debris damage played a significant role in the WTC7 collapse, apparently unknown explosives, possibly housed by the C.I.A. or Secret Service, appeared to have been stored on the premises. We don't have to speculate openly as to whether they owned the explosives, I'm sure the press will do that anyway..ha ha. We'll argue..no bad choice of words...maintain..yes much better, maintain that the fires in the building lead to the detonation of those explosives which sufficiently weakened the building to create the observed collapse phenomenon! I like it!

Okay, I think that should be the crux of the WTC7 Final Collapse Report. Flesh it out with our usual professional looking presentation, lots of documentation, pictures, lab tests, expert opinions etc. and I thing we'll make a lot of important people very happy.

That should work well and hell, it could have happened that way..sure..at least most people will think it could and that's the important thing here.

It was an accident of course. Some agency will get a wrist slap for illegal storage of dangerous explosives and we'll have the solution to the WTC7 mystery!

The public will buy it and so what if it's not probable that random explosions could create a controlled demolition effect. People are screaming for proof of controlled demolition, well dammit we'll give 'em their demolition explanation and they'll soon be so bored with the story, no one will pursue the details further.

That'll take 'the wind out of the sails' of that crazy 9/11 truth Movement! We could have ignored WTC7 all together if it wasn't for those unpatriotic basta*ds!

Well, I feel so much better now. After work the drinks are on me."

---

Yes T.A.M. I give a lot of thought to most of my posts..usually well before I make them.

MM

You should write fictional novels, maybe even try your hand at screenwriting. I haven't seen fiction that creative and offset from reality in some time.

Anyone know a publisher willing to take on the writings of MM?

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 10:01 AM   #37
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
duplicate (stupid internet connection)

Last edited by T.A.M.; 9th April 2007 at 10:03 AM.
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 10:33 AM   #38
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,156
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
You should write fictional novels, maybe even try your hand at screenwriting. I haven't seen fiction that creative and offset from reality in some time.

Anyone know a publisher willing to take on the writings of MM?

TAM
Hiya Doc -

You're being facetious, right? Regarding MM and his writing "ability"? Thanks Doc. Thought so. You had me scared for just a second.

It is not creative, and you have to start with that if your manuscript is a gonna have it some legs. MM's thing is drivel, lamely assembled into "dialogue" in a pathetic attempt to dramatize the issue. He failed. Drama rating: zero point zero.

It is not screenplay material. Where are the 3 acts? I don't see them, do you? Nope - and you're even using your stethoscope, Doc. Lacks the 3-act structure, too much dialogue, no indication of setting, boring characterizations, no distinction between characters - this motion picture ain't movin'. A reader over at Paramount would use this screenplay as a droppings grabber for the gerbil cage on his and/or her desk.

It ain't funny. I mean if you are going to use sarcasm or similes or proxies or parallels to deliver the thrust of your premise within a humorous construct - ya gots to know what yer doin'. This is MM. Need I say more?

I heard tell that MM makes his living by licking the soup can labels and sticking them on the cream of mushroom. He should keep that day job, look ahead to retirement.
ConspiRaider is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 10:36 AM   #39
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Rosie O'Donnel can play NIST Scientist Numero Uno.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 11:00 AM   #40
JonnyFive
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,459
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Hmm..let's see

---



---

Yes T.A.M. I give a lot of thought to most of my posts..usually well before I make them.
Eh... I liked T.A.M.'s version better.
JonnyFive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.